get_forecast

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions returning a forecast or error message, but omits details like data source, update frequency, or rate limits. The inherent read-only nature is reasonable, but more context would help.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but includes an Args section that is redundant with the input schema. It could be more concise by omitting the Args section, as the schema already defines parameters. Still, it is not overly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the basics: what it does, input coordinates, and output type. However, it lacks completeness on error conditions, coordinate limitations, or any output formatting hints beyond 'formatted forecast'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only repeats parameter names with minimal description (e.g., 'Latitude coordinate'). It lacks details like valid ranges (-90 to 90), decimal degree format, or that longitude should be between -180 and 180.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a weather forecast for given coordinates. The verb 'get' and resource 'weather forecast' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_alerts' and 'run_shell_command'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'get_alerts' for warnings). The description lacks context for decision-making, such as noting that coordinates should be valid or that this tool is for general forecasts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.